In This Section
TV Guide Spotlight
Also on TVGuide.com
|
« Today's News: Our Take
What the?! FCC and Fox Case Goes to Supreme Court
Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie presenting at the 2003 Billboard Music Awards
In what comes as a shock to many industry insiders, the Supreme Court has decided to hear the FCC's 2006 indecency suit against Fox, in what will be the Court's first such case in 30 years, Variety says.
The FCC's gripe stems from a citation it made for "fleeting expletives" uttered by Nicole Richie and Cher in separate Billboard Music Awards shows in 2002 and 2003. Fox shot back at the FCC, calling its actions "arbitrary and capricious." Fox also asserted that the "FCC's expanded enforcement of the indecency law is unconstitutional in today's diverse media marketplace where parents have access to a variety of tools to monitor their children's television viewing."
Given that the last ruling the Supreme Court made on so-called "indecency" cases was in 1978 — and technology, media (and perhaps even culture) have changed — do you think it's time for a dusting-off of policy? Or is it a good thing that this issue is being brought to the Supreme table? — Anna Dimond
Use our Online Video Guide to watch Fox shows.
|
TVGuide Links:
|
|
|
|
Mar 17, 2008 9:55 PM
|
OK, I get why there are censors. Maybe it's not the best thing for people to be able to say whatever they want whenever they want. I know I certainly don't want/need to hear eff this, eff that, ALL the time.
However, especially in the case of these accidental expletives (or "fleeting expletives" as I guess they're called) it's just ridiculous. Show me the (damn!) person who is (effin') scarred for life from those (effin') expletives!
What service is really being done by fining any network YEARS later. I could understand (sort of) if the fine was IMMEDIATE. But no one is hurt by the F word (or Janet Jackson's breast). And anyone who is remembering it 5-6 YEARS LATER has too easy of a life if they can still be thinking about this (and think they have been harmed).
It may be a good thing to bring it to the table ONLY to get the policy updated. I mean, as Kathy Griffin's mom says, "Jesus Chris, God damn it! For Christ's sake. Jesus. God! Damn! It!"
It's just so puritanical as it is now! I don't think Americans want swear words to take over TV but I would hope most people could just let these "fleeting expletives" go. As I said, no one is harmed by the F word (or any swear word, really). It doesn't appear that Cher or Nicole Richie were using the words in a derogatory manner towards someone. So...what's the problem here? Get over it!
Gah!
|
|
Mar 17, 2008 10:41 PM
|
|
Courts love the phrase arbitrary and capricious, and the use of those words signals that they will probably focus on the application of the rule, rather than the rule itself - unless Fox's media statement is saying it's also asking the USSC to look at the substantive rules.
|
|
Mar 17, 2008 11:58 PM
|
Leah, don't forget that the USSC decides which cases it wishes to hear. All the parties can do is petition the Court. My take is that the USSC has agreed to hear this particular issue because there have been several recent cases involving the FCC and some bizarre rulings. I agree with Dianora that they are probably going to determine the interpretation/application of the pre-existing rule.
And, Cruciatus, I agree completely. I don't want open-ended swearing on TV, but that's life. My 10 yo hears worse just waiting on line to buy movie tickets. At least with TV, I can block shows and monitor what she is hearing/seeing.
|
|
Mar 18, 2008 10:08 AM
|
Leah, don't forget that the USSC decides which cases it wishes to hear.
I know, they're supposed to decide if they'll hear the case by june. If this murderer gets out, I will lose all faith I have in this country and it's judicial system. (I knew the kid who was murdered, we were in the same class.)
|
|
Mar 18, 2008 10:13 AM
|
|
The USSC doesn't really pick cases at the expense of another. While it takes a very small number each year, it doesn't have quotas or limits. If it doesn't take a case, it's simply because the case doesn't present a question that the court believes it needs to step in and answer. If both the Fox/FCC case and the case you linked to present questions that it feels are important to hear, it will take them both regardless of how many other cases it has chosen. A case may present an "important issue," but that isn't the criteria the Court uses in determining which ones to hear. It may select a case because multiple appellate courts have turned out conflicting opinions, for example.
|
|
Mar 18, 2008 10:35 AM
|
|
I believe fox is right and that the fcc is controlled by a bunch of right ring prudes who would have us all watching right ring junk but I am a little scared that the court will side with the fcc since the majority of the court are conservative just my two cents
|
|
Mar 18, 2008 11:34 AM
|
The court being more conservative in this case HELPS, since "liberal" and "conservative" mean very different things when talking about USSC justices than it does when talking about political ideology. Conservative justices believe that the Constitution says what it says, and nothing more (of course there is a sliding scale - but for basic purposes here, let's go with this). The Constitution says that Congress shall make no law abridging free speech. Liberal justices are the ones more likely to try to read extra words and meaning into that to provide for exceptions.
And those "right ring prudes" are actually "right wing prudes", just an FYI.
|
|
Mar 18, 2008 11:43 AM
|
The FCC is seriously insane. I'm personally not offended by bad language, but I don't want my neices/nephews, etc, exposed to it either. HOWEVER, this is REALITY and in reality, they're gonna hear it at some point. A slip up on TV should be forgiven. Kids WILL heal, FCC, don't worry. I find it hysterical that ACCIDENTAL bad language warrants this kind of attention, meawhile turn on your TV after 8PM and look at the levels of extreme violence. But that's OK?
BTW, did the FCC fine ABC for Diane Keaton's slip up a couple of months back? She straight up dropped the F-Bomb on live TV...Where are those sanctions? There shouldn't be any, it was an accident. The world will heal.
Sorry for the rant, but I *hate* when the FCC oversteps themselves like this. The whole "suing ABC over NYPD showing 2 seconds of an ass five years ago" thing still boils my blood.
|
|
Mar 18, 2008 11:46 AM
|
She straight up dropped the F-Bomb on live TV...Where are those sanctions?
If the FCC keeps up its trend of seriously delayed reactions, we'll be hearing about that about ten years down the road. 
|
|
Mar 18, 2008 11:54 AM
|
|
They need to get over this. What they should do is have the Networks put a 5 second delay on all live TV events. That way, they can avoid this crap and everyone is happy.
|
|
Mar 18, 2008 12:53 PM
|
|
all this while other countries laugh at us
|
|
Mar 18, 2008 1:13 PM
|
all this while other countries laugh at us
Mick- You are so right! This country needs to wake up. We are supposedly 'free' yet we are very puritanical when it comes to our media.
|
|
Mar 18, 2008 2:32 PM
|
|
|
